Roeland, Bill and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 06:23 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >At 04:52 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >>At 12:22 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >>>Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> (*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
> >>>> balanced, and caused the USG to get involved. This remains true with
> >>>> ICANN -- ICANN will only succeed because the USG has sufficient power
> >>>> to force a resolution.
> >>>
> >>>Hmmm. What power does the USG have to prevent people from using
> >>>alternative TLDs?
> >>
> >>answer: None.
> >
> >Hey, gorgeous logo, Roeland! Stop in to see your local trademark
> >lawyer!
>
> Already saw one, years ago <grin>. 's why I did the logo.
>
> >As to alternative TLDs in the sense of a bunch of groupies wanting
> >your services, secure intra-group transmissions, etc., I say go for it.
> >Of course, if I understand your lashup correctly, you'll be invisible
> >to the rest of the world, but hey, you gotta pay a price for taking
> >the off-road path, right?
>
> In terms of security, a certain type of invisibility is desired. As regards
> to going off-road, both the Suburban and the CJ5 are fully 4x4 qualified
> (and still sport Colorado plates where 60% of the State roads are still
> dirt/gravel<grin>). BTW, I also own boots, Stetson, duster, long-arm, and
> side-arm. No, I didn't vote for Nighthorse (never trust a turn-coat).
>
> Back to topic, it is no accident that you don't see actual transactions
> over the InterNet. The *real* stuff uses SET rather than SSL. We're trying
> to bring that same level of security to the InterNet. But the only way we
> can see of doing it is via new TLDs.
Roeland the TLD really doesn't matter here. Any TLD can be implemented
as a secure site using SET or SSL/TLS, it is a matter of level of
authentication
and/or which Certs you are going to allow to have access and at what level
to any given secure site via HTTPS/SMTPS. With our MLPI or interface
facility multiple secure protocols can be used and selectively at the
server level. With SROOTS and BINDplus similar in some ways to
BIND 8.2 (Released by ICS.org on March 16th) you can now have
a "Virtual Root structure which can be defined at multiple points
of presence throughout the net and run any TLD's you wish as well
as provide a for a shared registration process that can check multiple
registries at registration time by any registrant/registrar form any secure
or non-secure web site. Using Multicast you can than update either manually
through a transaction app or in an automated mode to any and all excepting
ISP's that are participating (Pointing or have their own registry DNS database
using existing legacy or SROOTS). This insures against DN collisions
and provides for multiple TLD's to operate still independent within their
own subnet, should that be a desire.
You know that we have discussed this of several occasions over the phone,
so most of this is not new to you Roeland. Just thought I would outline
it in brief again here for others, including Stef, for clarity purposes.
> Basically, a TLD with only known
> secure hosts in it. Hosts that have passed some sort of security audit.
> These hosts would also be on the Internet but access would be via the new
> TLD. You were asking about what I meant about chartered TLDs earlier? Well,
> that's the nutshell explanation.
Than you are really talking about another rendition of NameSpace.
>
>
> My problem is that this TLD needs to be legally defensible and enforceable.
> This means that if ICANN tries to give it to someone else, or some scum-bag
> tries to register an unknown host in it, MHSC would have to hunt them down
> and shoot them with a law suit and make it stick.
That is fine, but who wants to be involved in unnecessary legal disputes
unless it becomes absolutely necessary. What you seem to be proposing
set you up for those kinds of legal disputes a bit beyond what is necessary
from where I am sitting unless I am missing something here???
> Also, because of the way
> DNS works, we have to be able to prevent ICANN from registering the TLD
> elsewhere on the Internet.
You mean registering a DN within that TLD name space, right? Unless
ICANN wishes to cooperate and is willing to adhere to US TM law, they
are not likely to do so.... Once they have been slapped with a lawsuit
in this regard, it is a matter of jurisdiction in some cases. The key here
is to share REGISTRY data access across multiple REGISTRIES,
not REGISTRARS and provide for multiple REGISTRIES to exist so that
there is TRUE competition in the Domain Name business and provide
a CHOICE of DN's under a selection of gTLD's for potential customers.
> Even a private TLD has conflict problems with a
> public TLD of the same name. "There can be only one" applies here, or did
> you miss Stef's explanation of the technical problem?
Well I did not miss Stef's explanation. I found it quite good, although
still
incomplete...
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer -
> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
> ___________________________________________________
> KISS ... gotta love it!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
